EatMoreOatmeal

8416 pts · December 4, 2012


Stick to German politics.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 4

You realize they could pay for it by cutting expenditures, right? That’s the disingenuous part of this argument. The tax cuts “cost” $0.

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 4

require and increase of the debt limit, meaning we are still losing trillions of dollars a year. This shit isn’t hard to understand. (2)

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 6

Take off your partisan glasses and realize both parties are the problem. The current plan to raise expenditures and revenue would still (1)

4 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 8

Correct, if my budget has me losing $1tn dollars a year, and I increase revenue and expenses by $1bn, I’m- wait for it- still losing $1tn

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

revenue keeps us at a massive budget deficit. This place is full of economic idiots, and I have to go work.

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 15

Are you having trouble reading? You can pay for things using existing income by cutting spending. Increasing spending while increasing (1)

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 15

It’s not normal, it’s called a decrease in revenue, no business savvy person would ever call it a cost. They should, in tandem, cut expenses

4 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 16

Tax cuts don’t cost anything, you moron.

4 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 30

Legend

5 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 39

What’s the hate group?

6 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I’ve seen bigger nipples on a goldfish

6 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It’s not guaranteed. It gives the government the right to oversee, if needed.

6 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

They would at a higher cost, but they aren’t going to compete with a company performing that service at a loss— it’s not possible to compete

6 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Who said they have to do it cheaper? That’s never said in the constitution. Again, you feel entitled to the price even though it’s at a loss

6 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

can do it for cheaper, then they should. The constitutional right is for oversight IF NEEDED.

6 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

We are the shareholders and we are piper for their loss. The constitution only allows for federal oversight of postage. If a private company

6 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

It’s not mandated- the constitution gives the federal government the right to oversee it. If a private company can do it better, they should

6 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

What is a feotus? Is it related to the GEOTUS somehow?

6 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I’m sorry for your loss. My wife and I recently went through a miscarriage. You will be in our prayers.

6 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

It’s not guaranteed to free or even cheap. You feel entitled to it being cheap since it is now.

6 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

Because the USPS will at a LOSS, you absolute economic retard.

6 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 6

It’s guaranteed to be delivered / have access to. It’s not guaranteed to be cheaper than FEDEX, free to next-day. Again, you feel entitled.

6 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

These people don’t understand logic

6 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

mountain. You people have been given something at an unsustainable price and now feel entitled to it.

6 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

They wouldn’t get cut off- you would have to pay more. It’s not unreasonable to have to pay more for shipping if you live on the top of a

6 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 6